| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Aedi" |
| Date: |
18 Sep 2005 10:45:08 AM |
| Object: |
"The Nature of Mass" |
"The Nature of Mass"
We have all been taught in our physics classes that mass is
one of the fundamental entities of our reality and that all of the effects
occurring in our Universe are dependent on interactions between masses. It
behooves us then to examine what we know of mass.
About 40 years ago the writer came across the observation in a
Scientific American article that, in the equation E=M*C^2 there can only be
two
independent variables. One of those variables, E, M, or C must be dependent
upon
the other two. If we look at the velocity of light, C, it is obvious that it
must be one of the independent variables. Since velocity involves only
length
and time, we can measure the velocity of light under conditions that are
independent of either mass or energy. Similarly, it is obvious that energy,
E,
is an independent variable since energy involves only force and length, we
can
also measure it under conditions that are independent of the velocity of
light
and of mass. There remains only mass to be examined.
If one wished to determine the mass of an object, one could
weigh it (gravitational mass), shake it (inertial mass) or observe the
amount of
energy released if it where annihilated. Weighing a mass provides a
measurement
of its mass but the observation is made in terms of a reference mass (e.g.-
the
mass of the Earth) and, in effect, we would then be defining the mass in
terms
of another mass. This is hardly an acceptable solution since it leads to a
dead
end. Annihilating the mass is a legitimate solution providing one can
measure
the energy content of the end products without relying on a measurement of
their
mass (such a reliance would be a form of circular reasoning). The remaining
possibility is to measure the inertial properties of the mass by, for
example,
shaking it and measuring the force required to produce an a given
acceleration.
This type of measurement involves force, length, and time, all of which are
directly observable and does not suffer form the limitations of the other
methods. What we would then be doing is measuring mass as the incremental
impulse required to produce an incremental change in velocity. (In the case
of
photons and neutrinos it might be desirable to remove the word "incremental"
from the measurement since these particles exist only at the velocity of
light).
Seen in this light, what we consider to be mass is actually a property which
is
an indication of the energy required to change the velocity of the quantity
of
energy defined by E=M*C^2. With this definition, the Lorentz Transformation
for
Mass becomes equal to the cube of the accepted value and allows problems
involving STR to be solved without resorting to momentum. This conclusion is
consistent with STR because the conventional Lorentz Transformation results
when
one integrates this transformation between the limits of 0 and V.
An intellectual difficulty occurs when one considers the
so-called "massless" particles. They have this name because they have no
"rest
mass". A reasonable man would consider such a terminology to be frivolous
because these particles exist only when traveling at the velocity of light.
They
have no "rest mass" because they don't exist at rest. These so called
"massless"
particles do however, possess inertial mass as evidenced by the radiation
pressure they exert when their velocity vectors are altered, either by
reflection or absorption. They provide the same reaction force as would a
material particle of the same relativistic mass that was traveling
infinitesimally close to the velocity of light. They also experience
gravitational forces that are twice the force that would be experienced by a
material particle of the same energy. A simple "thought experiment" as
outlined
in Part 4 of http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm easily shows this. (The
writer
has received a rather cryptic E-mail from someone who apparently is
associated
with the physics establishment to the effect that the photon imparts
momentum
because its energy is equal to the product of its frequency and Plank's
Constant
and it is traveling at the velocity of light. The sender denied vehemently
that
the expression E=M*C^2 and the idea that even though the photon contains
energy
and imparts a momentum equivalent to a mass of that energy traveling at the
velocity of light, means that the photon has mass. Bertrand Russell is
reported
to have said that the sign of a great mind is the ability to hold two
mutually
exclusive beliefs at the same time. The writer disagrees with him. That
ability
is the sign of a mind which is too lazy to resolve the contradiction and/or
is
too damn lazy or too damn stupid to resolve it)
The inertial and gravitational masses of the so-called
"massless" particles have a significant effect on our understanding of
cosmology. A back of the envelope calculation suggests that the inertial
mass of
these particles, as evidenced by the 3 degree Kelvin radiation temperature
of
space, exceeds the inertial mass of the matter in our Universe by a factor
of
10. When we consider that neutrinos are formed in nucleons that have 1800
times
the energy content of the source of photons (electrons), it may be possible
that
the mass of neutrinos outweighs the mass of photons by a factor of 1800!
Looked
at it in this light, our Universe may actually be a gasbag of photons and
neutrinos filled with a miniscule amount of the dust we call matter. Rather
than
being the King of the Universe, what we call as matter may actually be only
a
miniscule contaminant.
If we examine the radiation pressure produced by the observed
level of photons in space, it is easy to see why space appears to be
expanding.
Radiation pressure is counteracting the gravitational pressure. It is also
easy
to understand why the dynamics of galaxies appears to be skewed by what is
termed "dark matter". There would seem to be no need to postulate the
existence
of "dark matter" until the gravitational and inertial effects of the photons
and
neutrinos that populate the Universe have been amply explored. This has not
been
done, primarily because these particles have been foolishly defined as
"massless".
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Nature of Mass" |
18 Sep 2005 02:20:27 PM |
|
|
Aedi wrote:
"The Nature of Mass"
[snip ignorant crap]
http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.
Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png
http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
<http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf>
http://www.fuckinggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3Awittke
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
<http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html>
<http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html>
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]
Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.
Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.
<http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf>
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html>
Mathematics of gravitation
<http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf>
<http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf>
<http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf>
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
<http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
<http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html>
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
<http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a>
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
<http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html>
Carroll on what it all means.
Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.
The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.
NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
<http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm>
<http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf>
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
<http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
<http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html>
If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ***** - even
when you *****.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: "The Nature of Mass" |
19 Sep 2005 05:42:07 AM |
|
|
Aedi wrote:
"The Nature of Mass"
We have all been taught in our physics classes that mass is
one of the fundamental entities....
Aedi meet Don
Don Aedi
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
